| Literature DB >> 27824875 |
R Zahran1,2, J I Rosales Leal1,2,3, M A Rodríguez Valverde4,5, M A Cabrerizo Vílchez4,5.
Abstract
al">Titanium implant surface etching has proven an effective method to enhance cell attachment. Despite the frequent use of <span class="Chemical">hydrofluoric (HF) acid, many questions remain unresolved, including the optimal etching time and its effect on surface and biological properties. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of HF acid etching time on Ti topography, surface chemistry, wettability, and cell adhesion. These data are useful to design improved acid treatment and obtain an improved cell response. The surface topography, chemistry, dynamic wetting, and cell adhesiveness of polished Ti surfaces were evaluated after treatment with HF acid solution for 0, 2; 3, 5, 7, or 10 min, revealing a time-dependent effect of HF acid on their topography, chemistry, and wetting. Roughness and wetting increased with longer etching time except at 10 min, when roughness increased but wetness decreased. Skewness became negative after etching and kurtosis tended to 3 with longer etching time. Highest cell adhesion was achieved after 5-7 min of etching time. Wetting and cell adhesion were reduced on the highly rough surfaces obtained after 10-min etching time.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27824875 PMCID: PMC5100918 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165296
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1White light microscope micrographs (3D) of Ti surface at different immersion times (scan size 292x214 μm2).
Roughness, contact angle and cell adhesion data [mean (SD)].
| Parameters | Etching time (min) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 7 | |||
| 0.7(0.1)a | 1.3(0.2)b | 1.7(0.7)b | 3(1)c | 3.9(0.9)c | 4.7(0.8)d | ||
| 0.9(0.1)a | 1.8(0.7)b | 2.2(0.4)b | 4(1)c | 5(1)d | 6(1)d | ||
| 3.1(0.1)a | 8(3)b | 11(2)c | 11(2)c | 13(2)c | 14(2)c | ||
| -3.1(0.1)a | -13(4)b | -13(3)b | -17(4)c | -16(3)c | -20(3)d | ||
| 6.2(0.2)a | 21(4)b | 24(3)b | 28(5)c | 30(3)c | 34(5)d | ||
| 0.01(0.02)a | -0.5(0.5)b | -1(1)b | -0.6(0.3)b | -0.4(0.3)b | -0.5(0.1)b | ||
| 18(5)a | 10(4)b | 9(3)b | 6(3)c | 5(1)c | 3.2(0.4)d | ||
| 2(0.02)a | 2.02(0.01)b | 2.02(0.01)b | 2.03(0.01)c | 2.04(0.02)d | 2.02 (0.01)b | ||
| 1.00a | 1.12(0.05)b | 1.13(0.04)b | 1.17(0.05)c | 1.25(0.1)d | 1.11(0.02)b | ||
| 87(5)a | 85(5)a | 76(5)b | 73(5)bc | 63(4)d | 70(4)c | ||
| 28(3)a | 27(4)a | 27(5)a | 25(4)a | 18(4)b | 20(3)b | ||
| 58(5)a | 57(5)a | 52(6)b | 50(6)bc | 43(6)d | 46(4)dc | ||
| 58(4)ab | 61(3)b | 56(4)bc | 56(5)bc | 54(5)cd | 51(6)d | ||
| 0 | 0.021(0.004)a | 0.042(0.005)b | 0.061(0.006)c | 0.093(0.004)d | 0.123(0.005)e | ||
| 0 | 0.007(0.002)a | 0.012(0.003)b | 0.015(0.005)b | 0.065(0.002)c | 0.085(0.006)d | ||
| 300(50)a | 412(77)b | 527(29)c | 598(55)de | 652(47)e | 568(31)d | ||
SD: Standard deviation. Values with different letter in each row are statistically different (p<0.05).
Fig 2Graph showing the Sa, Sq y contact angle values after the different etching times.
Fig 3SEM micrographs of Ti surface at different immersion times (205x155 μm2 scan size).
Percentages of main chemical species found by XPS.
| Etching time (min) | Ti (2p) | O (1s) | C (1s) | F (1s) | N (1s) | Al (2p) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 7 | 27 | 60 | 0 | 3.5 | 2.5 |
| 2 | 4 | 29 | 62.5 | 0.5 | 4 | 0 |
| 3 | 15 | 53 | 30 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 5 | 16 | 52 | 30 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 7 | 15 | 45 | 39 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 10 | 17 | 47 | 35 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Fig 4SEM micrographs of cells attached to Ti surfaces (205x155 μm2 scan size).